rectify_subject

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects (superseding the value, writing a ledger entry), that all write guards apply, required actor/reason fields, and the blocked behavior including the old value standing and ledger status being 'blocked' rather than 'ok'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers side effects, required inputs, and failure behavior without unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is remarkably complete: it covers purpose, required parameters, side effects, and return/blocked behavior. The only notable omission is the optional parameters and a bit more detail on the exact return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `key`, `text`, `actor`, and `reason` well. However, the optional `subject` and `request_id` parameters are not mentioned, leaving a small semantic gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as GDPR Art. 16 rectification, with a specific verb ('supersede') and resource ('the value under `key`'). It also distinguishes this from sibling read/recall tools by emphasizing it is an ordinary keyed write with guards and a rights:rectify ledger entry.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: rectification requests under GDPR Art. 16. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.